Yanping Liu v. Loretta Lynch, 644 F. App'x 301

Petitioner Yanping Liu, a Chinese national, appealed the BIA’s affirmance of an IJ’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
The IJ found Liu not credible due to inconsistencies and omissions between her written asylum application and testimony, vague and non-responsive testimony, and scant corroboration.
The BIA affirmed the IJ, relying primarily on five identified inconsistencies/omissions and the lack of corroborating evidence.
Liu argued the inconsistencies were minor or unrelated to the merits, that additional testimony detail should not undermine credibility, and that she lacked advance notice that corroboration would be required.
The panel reviewed the BIA’s decision for substantial evidence and deferred to its credibility determination unless no reasonable factfinder could have made it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adverse credibility based on testimony vs. written application	Liu: Differences were minor or irrelevant and did not undermine credibility	Gov: Any inconsistency or omission may support adverse credibility under REAL ID Act	Court: Affirmed; inconsistencies/omissions plus demeanor and lack of corroboration support adverse credibility
Requirement to provide corroborating evidence / notice	Liu: IJ erred by not giving advance notice she had to offer corroboration (citing Ren)	Gov: Liu failed to exhaust before BIA; IJ’s decision not based solely on lack of corroboration; REAL ID Act contemplates corroboration	Court: Jurisdictional bar to review exhaustion claim; even on merits, corroboration issue was not sole basis; no error
Standard of review for BIA factual findings	Liu: BIA’s denial is unsupported	Gov: Substantial evidence supports BIA findings	Court: Substantial evidence supports denial of asylum and thus withholding; CAT challenge waived for lack of meaningful briefing
Effect of adverse credibility on withholding/CAT claims	Liu: Claims still meritorious despite credibility ruling	Gov: Credibility ruling defeats all claims	Court: Asylum denial defeats withholding; CAT claim waived for failure to brief

Theodros v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 2007) (review BIA and underlying IJ decision when relied on by BIA)
Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531 (5th Cir. 2009) (defer to credibility determinations unless no reasonable factfinder could make them)
Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2011) (discusses notice to alien to provide corroboration)
Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132 (5th Cir. 2004) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies is jurisdictional)
Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899 (5th Cir. 2002) (asylum denial defeats withholding claim)
Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76 (5th Cir. 1994) (same principle regarding withholding following asylum denial)
Sanders v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 553 F.3d 922 (5th Cir. 2008) (issues not meaningfully briefed are waived)